Putting music to trial: Consensus on key methodological challenges investigating music‐based rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major advances in music neuroscience have fueled a growing interest in music-based neurological rehabilitation among researchers and clinicians. Musical activities are excellently suited to be adapted for clinical practice because of their multisensory nature, their demands on cognitive, language, and motor functions, and music's ability to induce emotions and regulate mood. However, the overall quality of music-based rehabilitation research remains low to moderate for most populations and outcomes. In this consensus article, expert panelists who participated in the Neuroscience and Music VII conference in June 2021 address methodological challenges relevant to music-based rehabilitation research. The article aims to provide guidance on challenges related to treatment, outcomes, research designs, and implementation in music-based rehabilitation research. The article addresses how to define music-based rehabilitation, select appropriate control interventions and outcomes, incorporate technology, and consider individual differences, among other challenges. The article highlights the value of the framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions for music-based rehabilitation research and the need for stronger methodological rigor to allow the widespread implementation of music-based rehabilitation into regular clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.318 | 0.610 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".